ODA Committee presentation at the committee hearings into the
repeal of Employment Equity.

These folks here have a written presentation. I'm a little
confused about exactly who we have now. Sam Savona from
Transportation Action Now? David Baker, legal counsel of the
Ontarians with Disabilities?

Mr David Baker: That's right; yes.

The Chair: And Gary Malkowski, executive committee of the
Ontarians with Disabilities.

Mr Sam Savona: We are all in one group.

The Chair: Okay. You're all in one presentation today.
Basically, you have 20 minutes. You can use any part of that you
want to allow for questions. When we do get to the question time,
I would ask you to keep your answers brief so that the members of
the committee can get a chance to ask more questions. The clock
is running. Welcome to our committee.

Mr Savona: Thank you, Mr Chairman. You took away my job. My
name is Sam Savona. I am wearing three hats today. I am a board
member of Transportation Action Now. I am co-chair of the
Ontarians with Disabilities Action Committee and I am, in my
private life, a disability board member with a disability. I am
an executive member of the ODA committee, and also am serving as
director at the community hearing society in the broadcasters'
union, NABET, and I handle all legal matters for Transportation
Action Now, as well as for the ODA committee.

We are here to talk about the Ontarians for Disability Act.
One comment I would like to make personally as a consultant with
a disability. One of my American clients has pointed out to me
that it is normal for them to come to Ontario and have their
problems. They have to ensure that their ADA law, Americans with
Disability Act, that it is adhered to as well. In a way I am
losing business by not having a similar act in Canada and
Ontario, and I am not the only, as you know, big business in
Ontario. I will go to David.

Mr Baker: Alan Borovoy said

(Mr Savona)
...act in Canada and Ontario and I am not the only-as you know,
I'm not the only business in Ontario. I will go on to David.

Mr David Baker: Alan Borovoy said to you that he was concerned
about throwing the baby out with the bath water. We're here today
to tell you that the baby hasn't had a bath yet,-that disabled
people in this province have not had an opportunity and that ODA
committee adopts the position that they are opposed to the repeal
of the Employment Equity Act because it represented a significant
advance for disabled people, a significant opportunity for
disabled people to have barriers removed and to get into the
workforce.

The government is talking about equal opportunity, but it's
talking about voluntary, non-legislated approaches to equal
opportunity. Mr Malkowski will address this issue. The government
has promised an Ontarians with disabilities act, but there is no
policy work being done on an Ontarians with disabilities act and
the government is not meeting with the Ontarians with
Disabilities Action committee or other representatives of the
disabled community to address this kind of issue.

There are problems with the Human Rights Commission, as Mr
Borovoy has alluded, and Mr Borovoy has alluded to some of them.
You will be hearing, through the course of your process, from the
Human Rights Reform Group and we feel those kinds of changes are
necessary. But our basic message is this: that in Helmut Kohl's
Germany, in Margaret Thatcher's Britain, in Ronald Reagan's and
George Bush's United States of America, there are stronger pieces
of legislation ensuring access to employment for disabled people
than there would have been had the Employment Equity Act not been
repealed.

The unemployment rate for disabled people in this country is
higher than it is in other industrialized countries. The cost to
the public of not having disabled people in the workforce is very
high. So we urge you to rethink the decision to repeal employment
equity and urge also that you proceed with human rights reform
and the introduction of an Ontarians with disabilities act I
believe I turn it over to Mr Malkowski at this point.

Mr Gary Malkowski: Well, first of all, I'm strongly opposed to
the proposition by the government to repeal employment equity. I
would suggest that your intention should be actually to remove
barriers. What you would be doing by repealing this is actually
creating worse barriers for those who are disabled or deaf. I
think you fail to convince us that you are really seriously
committed to removing barriers.

For example, there is new technology out there-if you look at
blind people who can access computers. Now, it's true, there are
talking computers, but what about the new ones which are all
graphics? It's called Windows. That's of no use to blind folks.
It's the same with other kinds of computers that have voice
instructions. Those are of no use to deaf people.

So technology is not always the best answer for us. There are
other kinds of barrier-free design that need to be looked at-for
example, how one gets a job. How do you advertise for a job? How
does one apply for a job? If it's advertised in the newspaper,
how on earth can a blind person read that? That kind of thing-how
are we supposed to have access to the job market? If there's no
TTY number listed, how can a deaf person call to get further
information as to where to go to apply?

Bill 79 specifically has instructions within it to identify
barrier-free removal to make sure that people at least get the
interview. It's to remove the systemic barriers that are there in
society now and I want to remind all of the government members,
if you would remember that our hope as disabled people and as
deaf people, you're taking away that hope. We are hoping for a
better society where we will have full participation, especially
parents who have young children. You are taking away that hope by
removing Bill 79.

I would ask you to reconsider that. I'm asking you to think
about barrier-free removal in society for both disabled and non-
disabled people. I can give you an example of that. Think about
ramps when you look at a building. It's not only people in
wheelchairs who use those ramps. Let's say there are parents who
have strollers. They may use the ramps to go up there, or people
when they're moving furniture. I'm sure you've seen heavy
furniture being moved and used on those ramps. It benefits not
just disabled folks.

(Mr Malkowski)
I'm sure you've seen heavy furniture being moved and used on
those ramps; it benefits not just disabled folks. So when you
talk about access, it helps everyone.

Captioning: It doesn't just help those who can't hear. It also
helps people who are learning English as a second language,
because they can read along; or children who are at home, the
television is on and there's captioning there, they can also read
along. It's helpful, it's instructive, and it's industry that
will produce these products, and that means more jobs.

So I'm asking you to have a more holistic approach to
barrier-free design and be a little more creative and not repeal
Bill 79. We need policies and we need implementation by the
government that is proactive, something that will reduce cost to
society and remove barriers, not create further Problems.

I want to remind you to seriously think about the population,
the citizens of Ontario. One of the biggest growing populations
are older folks who will become disabled, and more and more
children who are being helped with advances of technology in
medicine are living longer and some of those children have
disabilities. What about them? What about their place? Where's
there place in society?

We need a holistic approach that is going to encompass all the
citizens of this province, not just some. So I'm asking you think
about not repealing Bill 79 and thinking about enacting an
Ontario with disabilities act, one that would encompass all the
citizens of this province.

The Chair: Thank you gentlemen. Each party now has about three
minutes so we'll start with Mr Marchese and the third party.

The Chair: Part of what Bill 79 was intended to do was to be
proactive and not reactive; that's the point. Human rights is
there to react to someone who has a complaint against them for a
number of reasons. The point of Bill 79 was to recognize that we
had systemic problems that we have to deal with.

This government says, well, we want to restore merit, because
Bill 79 kills merit." We said: No, that's not the case.
Merit is part of Bill 79. We want to hire people based on merit,
not because they're black or because they're disabled or because
they're women, but because they have merit and
qualification."

What is your sense of this plan that the Conservative
government has that says, What we want to do is bring about equal
opportunity for everybody, bring fairness to everybody?"
What do you think about that plan?

Mr Baker: I mentioned that Conservative governments in Germany
and in Britain and Republican governments in the United States
saw the importance of legislating access for disabled people. The
reason is that if merit means market, an individual person in the
marketplace is not going to build a ramp because it's not
economic to have that one customer in a wheelchair go next door
to someone else or go somewhere else or not even be in the
marketplace.

But overall, the cost to society of not granting access is
that everybody loses. Disabled people become dependent rather
than in jobs and independent. That is what is being lost with the
repeal of this bill, and that is what is going to be lost if this
government talks about voluntary, market-driven action to grant
access to disabled people. It won't work, and disabled people do
not believe it will work. This has to be addressed. Mr Marchese:
More time, Mr Chair?

The Chair: You have another minute.

Mr purchase: Can one of you or all of you, if you have time,
talk about the title of this document which says, Job Quotas
Repeal Act. What do you think about that?

Mr Savona: By the sound of it, it scares me, because I want to
get back to where we were talking before because a person with a
disability just as myself-I use myself as a perfect example. I
apply for jobs. I go for interviews. The moment I open my mouth,
I know that I will be looked upon as having a disability rather
than cerebral palsy. The moment I phone someone, and they ask who
you are...

(Mr Savona)
the moment I phone someone and they ask who you are, they will
hang up because they think I'm drunk

The Chair: Sam, I'm going to have to cut you off there;

okay.

Mr Marchese: I appreciate the answer because he's speaking of
systemic barriers really, and that's understandable.

The Chair: Yes, I understand that, so I did give him some
extra time.

Mr Tascona: I take it by the solution that you've put in your
document with respect to an Ontarians with Disabilities Act that
Bill 79, even in its present form, doesn't adequately address all
the barriers to employment and to disabled people in this
province?

Mr Baker: The proposal for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act
involves providing clearer guidance or standards, which is
following on the American model. Sam mentioned that American
conventions are not coming to Toronto any more because they don't
meet the American access standards. There are standards that are
set for hotels in the United States under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and it provides clear guidance and it provides
a rational period within which change is to take place.

The Employment Equity Act doesn't address the issue of access
to hotels, but it's important it relates to employment. So our
position has been that the Ontarians with Disabilities Act
addresses issues beyond employment such as accessible
transportation, such as provision of sign interpreters to people
appearing before legislative committees. Those kinds of issues
are not addressed in the Employment Equity Act, that's right, and
we saw the need for an Ontarians with Disabilities Act to
complement the Employment Equity Act.

Mr Tascona: Do you believe that an amendment or revision of
the Human Rights Code would be a useful step, if Bill 79 was to
be repealed, to address individuals with disabilities on the
employment side?

Mr Baker: The short answer on behalf of the committee is no,
but I think Mr Malkowski may have something to add.

Mr Tascona: Do you not believe that the Human Rights Code has
a role to play in this Process?

Mr Baker: I think if you talk to disabled people you will
learn that disabled people have no faith in the human rights
process in this province at the present time. If you thought of
it in terms of how many cases have actually been addressed since
disabled people were added to the Human Rights Code in 1981, I
believe you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of
employment cases that have been resolved through boards of
inquiry. That will give you some idea of the total breakdown in
the system. People are not eager to see that system perpetuated.
They see a need for major changes.

The principal distinction we're making is that the Human
Rights Code deals in a very expensive adversarial process which
goes on over a period of-I have cases that are 12 years old. This
is not an acceptable way to address, or a rational way to address
barrier removal.

The Americans have got a non-litigious system of providing
standards which are clear to everyone, which take into account
the financial realities faced by businesses there, and which also
assure disabled people that over a reasonable period of time-the
brief, you'll note, talks about barrier-free by the year 2000.
The idea is this has to be phased in over time, that that is the
preferred course and that is why the committee is recommending an
Ontarians with Disabilities Act as opposed to going the
adversarial, confrontational, after-the-fact route which is set
up under the Human Rights Code.

Mr Sergio: Mr Borovoy, the previous speaker, said to amend,
not to abolish. Would you have any specific suggestions with
respect to amending and not abolishing the bill as it is now?

Mr Baker: Mr Borovoy also used the Ontario College of Art as
what he was opposed to. I would suggest to you that the federal
government has just passed legislation which is based on the
Ontario legislation. It has a clause which says there shall not
be quotas, and effectively does the same thing.

Bill 79 is not quota legislation. It is legislation which says
to employers, Set goals and timetables." The only employers
who are practising employment equity for disabled people, of
which we are aware, are federal employers, specifically the banks
who have been subjected to litigation and have introduced

(Mr Baker)
...Ontario legislation. It has a clause which says there shall no
be quotas, and effectively does the same thing. Bill 79 is not
quota legislation. It is legislation which says to employers, Set
goals and timetables." The only employers who are practising
employment equity for disabled people, of which we are aware, are
federal employers, specifically the banks which have been
subjected to litigation and have introduced hiring goals.

Mr Borovoy said the goal must be set based on-he used the
example of women, 50-50. In the case of disabled people, if there
were hiring goals set for disabled people based on
representation, that would not take into account that disabled
people face 50% unemployment rates. The pool of available
disabled people, eager to get into the workforce is much higher
than their representation within the population as a whole. So
for example, the Royal Bank has hiring goals of 12. 5% in job
categories where representation is 6%. Under Mr Borovoy's
formula, the Royal Bank would not be permitted to hire disabled
people at twice representation. That doesn't work any unfairness
because the number of disabled people who are available to work
as bank tellers is far higher than in non-disabled categories
because of the high rates of unemployment among disabled people.
So I think Mr Borovoy has overstated his case, frankly.

Mrs Pupatello: I'd like to ask if you have any way of
collecting employment data for persons with disabilities and do
you notice any change in that over the last few years?

Mr Baker: Statistics Canada has data generated on disability.
The snapshots were taken in 1986 and 1991. Basically, the
employment rates for people for whom employment equity is
intended-that is, more severely disabled people-we all have some
degree of disability. I wear eyeglasses. Everybody has some
degree of disability. But the Employment Equity Act was intended
to address those of people with more severe disabilities,
particularly those who require the kinds of accommodation, such
as a ramp or a sign interpreter. For that group of people, the
employment picture has not improved over the five years of the
census.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Savona, Mr Baker and Mr
Malkowski.

Mr Malkowski: Mr Chair, if I may ask your indulgence. May I
ask, where would one send an invoice? I had to bring my own
interpreter. Where would I send the invoice to have the cost
covered this morning?

The Chair: That decision is going to be made by the
subcommittee, so send it to the clerk's office. We'll make a
decision on it.